1. I know there is a Biblical Hebrew forum or list out there that was sometimes mentioned in the list-server days. Some of my questions/remarks probably would be more relavant to that forum. What is the url, again?

2. For example, here is a simple question that isn't really BW related:
1st word in Ruth 1:4: Waåf.YIw: (vayyis'û) "and they took (wives)"
is qal imperfect 3rd masculine plural vav consecutive (vqw3mp) of afn ("to take, lift up"), which is a doubly weak verb of the pe-nun/lamed-aleph variety. (My personal mnemotic is "NASA"!) Shouldn't this form, in principle, have the sin duplicated with dagesh forte (as per the assimilated nun), as in the other forms of this binyan)? It doesn't, however, and this is regular throughout the 43 times this form appears in the Hebrew Bible (notice the masoretic note in BHS and BHQ). Is there a simple rule I'm forgetting? One online Hebrew tutorial I've seen does actually place a dagesh forte in the f even in this form, and perhaps this is done in modern Hebrew. Can anybody give me a hint on this, please?

Thanks,
Dan Pater

jakemccarty

03-21-2005, 10:47 AM

1. I know there is a Biblical Hebrew forum or list out there that was sometimes mentioned in the list-server days. Some of my questions/remarks probably would be more relavant to that forum. What is the url, again?

2. For example, here is a simple question that isn't really BW related:
1st word in Ruth 1:4: Waåf.YIw: (vayyis'û) "and they took (wives)"
is qal imperfect 3rd masculine plural vav consecutive (vqw3mp) of afn ("to take, lift up"), which is a doubly weak verb of the pe-nun/lamed-aleph variety. (My personal mnemotic is "NASA"!) Shouldn't this form, in principle, have the sin duplicated with dagesh forte (as per the assimilated nun), as in the other forms of this binyan)? It doesn't, however, and this is regular throughout the 43 times this form appears in the Hebrew Bible (notice the masoretic note in BHS and BHQ). Is there a simple rule I'm forgetting? One online Hebrew tutorial I've seen does actually place a dagesh forte in the f even in this form, and perhaps this is done in modern Hebrew. Can anybody give me a hint on this, please?

Thanks,
Dan Pater

Good question, I'll give the answer a shot. There are two types of 1 Nun verbs--A type and O type. In the 3mp (A type) the second letter has a shewa and if it were under a dagesh forte the pronunction would require a shewa which would produce a problematic vocalization with the third weak and suffix. Note that the 2fs and the 3mp also exhibits this phenomenon because they also include a vowel suffix.

Mark Eddy

03-21-2005, 01:05 PM

1. I know there is a Biblical Hebrew forum or list out there that was sometimes mentioned in the list-server days. Some of my questions/remarks probably would be more relavant to that forum. What is the url, again?

Use this url to subscribe or unsubscribe.
I hope this is what you're looking for.
Mark Eddy

David Kummerow

03-22-2005, 06:35 PM

Joüon - Muraoka provide some comments on this verb. See §78k.

David Kummerow.

paterdr

03-24-2005, 11:01 AM

Thanks, Jake and Marty, for your helpful replies. I've subscribed to b-Hebrew and have already made a bit of a contribution on the problem of the mem finalis at isa 9:6. Haven't seen it posted yet.
David, thanks for the Jouön reference, but that has more to do with the infinitive, and doesn't seem to pertain to or contribute to my original query. Perhaps I missed something.